"I swear (or affirm) that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada and fulfil my duties as a Canadian citizen."

"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."

The USA oath is baroque, vaguely threatening, not for the faint of heart.

When my daughter took it, the sitting judge, the eventual Senator George Mitchell, said the words and then asked if each of the new citizens did so declare. We whispered to Anh, "Say 'yes,'" and that was it.

Ever since the first draft in the Civil War era, there has been draft-dodging. They were just more upfront in the Civil War: the unmotivated rich man could simply hire a replacement to serve for him.

Much the same happened during Vietnam, but it was called the 'student deferment' or the National Guard. Ask me, Dick Cheney, or George W. Bush.

One argument for taming the USA taste for war is a universal draft, no exemptions or exceptions. The argument runs that people might pay a little more attention if they had a son or daughter in the fight.

Was the US oath revised after the draft dodging days (uh, still going on, obviously)?

It's been like that since at least 1957 and appears to go back to 1952 when the INA was enacted.

By statute, you can omit the lines about combat and noncombat service in the armed forces if you object to them on religious grounds:

A person who has applied for naturalization shall, in order to be and before being admitted to citizenship, take in a public ceremony before the Attorney General or a court with jurisdiction under section 1421(b) of this title an oath (1) to support the Constitution of the United States; (2) to renounce and abjure absolutely and entirely all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which the applicant was before a subject or citizen; (3) to support and defend the Constitution and the laws of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; (4) to bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and (5)(A) to bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law, or (B) to perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law, or (C) to perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law. Any such person shall be required to take an oath containing the substance of clauses (1) to (5) of the preceding sentence, except that a person who shows by clear and convincing evidence to the satisfaction of the Attorney General that he is opposed to the bearing of arms in the Armed Forces of the United States by reason of religious training and belief shall be required to take an oath containing the substance of clauses (1) to (4) and clauses (5)(B) and (5)(C) of this subsection, and a person who shows by clear and convincing evidence to the satisfaction of the Attorney General that he is opposed to any type of service in the Armed Forces of the United States by reason of religious training and belief shall be required to take an oath containing the substance of said clauses (1) to (4) and clause (5)(C). The term “religious training and belief” as used in this section shall mean an individual's belief in a relation to a Supreme Being involving duties superior to those arising from any human relation, but does not include essentially political, sociological, or philosophical views or a merely personal moral code. In the case of the naturalization of a child under the provisions of section 1433 of this title the Attorney General may waive the taking of the oath if in the opinion of the Attorney General the child is unable to understand its meaning. The Attorney General may waive the taking of the oath by a person if in the opinion of the Attorney General the person is unable to understand, or to communicate an understanding of, its meaning because of a physical or developmental disability or mental impairment. If the Attorney General waives the taking of the oath by a person under the preceding sentence, the person shall be considered to have met the requirements of section 1427(a)(3) of this title with respect to attachment to the principles of the Constitution and well disposition to the good order and happiness of the United States.

8 U.S.C. § 1448(a). So great if you're a Quaker, but not so great if you think war is bullshit on policy grounds.

(The actual language of the oath is set by regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 337.1, and the statute only specifies its substance.)

WELCOME, my fellow Canadians!! Great news, Congrats to both you and Laura. And as for that Queen thing in the oath--well, she visits once in a while and if she hits your town the kids usually get the day off school. So there's that.

Maybe as you swear allegiance to Her Majesty, you could actually visualize Helen Mirren In 'The Queen' next to her stalled Land Rover, watching the highland stag. I could swear allegiance to Helen Mirren easily.

One argument for taming the USA taste for war is a universal draft, no exemptions or exceptions. The argument runs that people might pay a little more attention if they had a son or daughter in the fight.

The only problem with this is it will never exist.

In the history of humankind, and certainly in the history of modern warfare, there has never been a war in which privileged people have been unable to avoid serving.

That's why those of us who oppose war must oppose any talk of a so-called universal draft. Loopholes will be found, payments will be made, letters will be written. The privileged will stay home, the poor will be slaughtered. It is ever thus.

Apologies for such blatant off-topic propaganda, but I have a feeling Allan will let it slide.

So great if you're a Quaker, but not so great if you think war is bullshit on policy grounds.

Or plain old conscience without the god stuff.

Conscientious Objection, for the US, is all or nothing. Either take no action while your home is being invaded and your wife raped (always the example used), or too bad for you, you will kill whoever we tell you to.